Generates a fresh multi-chain payment challenge nonce with pricing tier and gasless Permit2 contract address, enabling x402 micro-settlements on Polygon, Base, or Arbitrum.
Generates a fresh multi-chain payment challenge nonce with pricing tier details and gasless Permit2 contract address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | polygon | |
| pricing_tier | No | STANDARD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at freshness ('fresh nonce') and gasless mechanics, but does not say whether this costs anything, requires authentication, mutates state, or is rate-limited — all critical for a payment-challenge endpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though truncated enough that the brevity costs clarity rather than serving it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented enum parameters, the description is too thin for a multi-chain payment tool. It does not explain what the challenge nonce is for, how long it is valid, or what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and largely does not. 'Multi-chain' vaguely gestures at the chain enum and 'pricing tier details' ambiguously references the tier, but the enum values (polygon/base/arbitrum, LIGHT/STANDARD/HEAVY/ONCHAIN) and their effects are never explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('payment challenge nonce'), and enumerates the payload contents (pricing tier details, gasless Permit2 contract address). This is clear and distinguishable, though it never differentiates itself from any sibling (none of which appear related, so the risk is low).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to call this, what precedes it, or what an agent does with the resulting nonce. No prerequisites (account, session, wallet) are stated, so the agent must infer the workflow entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.